I guess it's not really this board's policy, but I think things would be different if debaters were forced to link to evidence to support their claims. Then we'd see who's merely authoritative-sounding, and who can actually back up their words.

That might help a little, but as those of us who've been around FYM for a while know, being able to cite supporting sources of information doesn't necessarily mean your argument is more sound. Especially in the age of the internet.

Sting, you do realize Bush and Obama were handed two entirely different economies, right?

I mean you do read the news right, you know what's going on...

So to ask "will Obama be able to match..." is a pretty meaningless question.

There starting points are apples and oranges, so the side by side comparison will not be based on numbers but what they were able to do with the numbers they were handed.

That's how the real world judges these types of things.

My point is that what you are handed with in your first month or where you finish in your 96th month povided you get re-elected is only part of what has to be evaluated and looked at. Why is that so difficult for you to understand?

Unemployment started going up before Bush got into office and then 7 months later 9/11 happened and unemployment went up further over 2002 and 2003. Then from 2005 through the start of 2008, Bush had unemployment at historical lows. These types of figures fluctuate considerably over this length of time and rarely do you have a flat line downward or upward over 4 or 8 year time in office.

Over the next year, unemployment may rise considerably, and then fall, only to rise again, depending on various policies and other factors that we don't know of yet. What you don't do, is declare economic policy a success or a failure based simply on the situation the first month in which you started, and the last 96th month. There are 94 months in between those two points that could contain numerous rises in falls in the economic numbers based on a host of policies and other factors.

I guess it's not really this board's policy, but I think things would be different if debaters were forced to link to evidence to support their claims. Then we'd see who's merely authoritative-sounding, and who can actually back up their words.

If you doubt the economic numbers, look them up yourself. Its not that difficult to find annual unemployment, inflation, poverty rate, GDP growth rate, and debt as a percentage of GDP.

Nope, what is meaningless is using the first of 96 months of an administration and the last month of a 96 month administration in attempting to gauge is success. All 96 months matter, which is why the average does matter. Historians use such averages to help in their assessments.

Did I suggest that you use the first and last months? Absolutely not. Don't put words in my mouth.

An average is just as meaningless. Both of those suggestions are too simple. You need more detail. For starters, each of those statistics, with information for each year from 2001 to 2008.

The last two to three years are the most important because they're the years in which his policy had the most impact.

Did I suggest that you use the first and last months? Absolutely not. Don't put words in my mouth.

If you look back your emphasis was the starting point and the ending point, and I simply pointed out that your ignoring a vast amount of data and the admnistrations performance by doing that.

Quote:

An average is just as meaningless.

If that were the case, no one would use them, yet people in all walks of life do, especially when assessing someone or somethings performance over a set period of time.

Quote:

Both of those suggestions are too simple. You need more detail. For starters, each of those statistics, with information for each year from 2001 to 2008

The average is derived from all that detail from every month from 2001 to 2008. Cherry picking your favorite months to support your conclusions is not an accurate way to assess the Bush Presidency.

Quote:

The last two to three years are the most important because they're the years in which his policy had the most impact.

You might be able to get away with arguing that his policies had a less of an impact in his first year, but thats it.

Quote:

And that paints a totally different picture of the situation.

Certainly, if you cherry pick the worst months of ANY administration when it comes to economic numbers, you will be able to paint a totally different picture, but certainly not one that is accurate or correct.

I do think for the most part a lot of the Bush/Blair alliances came about through a "go along with it, have some sort of say in it, keep damage to a minimum" mentality. Although we're not completely blameless and people forget that.

the world is expecting America to sort everything out again. Obama has SO much pressure on his shoulders and I don't envy the man.
But I do think he'll restore their standing in the world somewhat And I totally agree about how we're so connected with the country - especially in terms of the British empire.

Do people in the US realise how in thrall the rest of us are to Obama, too? I genuinely want to know the answer to that - it feels like he's been elected as leader of the world, not just America.

Absolutely! Well said on all points

I feel the same, about world Leader now, because the world will sure be watching his next move VERY closely.

If you look back your emphasis was the starting point and the ending point, and I simply pointed out that your ignoring a vast amount of data and the admnistrations performance by doing that.

If that were the case, no one would use them, yet people in all walks of life do, especially when assessing someone or somethings performance over a set period of time.

The average is derived from all that detail from every month from 2001 to 2008. Cherry picking your favorite months to support your conclusions is not an accurate way to assess the Bush Presidency.

You might be able to get away with arguing that his policies had a less of an impact in his first year, but thats it.

Certainly, if you cherry pick the worst months of ANY administration when it comes to economic numbers, you will be able to paint a totally different picture, but certainly not one that is accurate or correct.

This post is positively absurd for a number of reasons:

1. I explained to you already that it was not my emphasis. My emphasis is that more detail is the ideal.

2. Just because people in all walks of life do something doesn't mean they're correct. There's a reason the phrase, "lies, damn lies, and statistics" came about. They can be extremely misleading. In this case, an average for eight years of economic change is misleading because of how much things changed over the eight years.

3. What? Derived from detail? That completely misses the point. The average levels out the highs and lows and does not display trends. And what's this cherry picking? I never said something like, "Look at September 2004, October 2007, and September 2008!" I said show the GDP and unemployment rates for each year from 2001 to 2008. I never said pick out specific months to make Bush look bad.

4. Sure, that's fine. 2002-2008, then. Detail for each of those years. I don't mind.

5. What is the matter with your reading comprehension? Never did I imply I wanted to cherry pick anything. I want more detail for the entirety of his administration.

President George W. Bush and First Lady Laura Bush pass the White House reins to incoming President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama.

Related News
Photo Gallery
President Barack Obama
Articles
Analysis: Bam's message short, but on target
Daly: Now truly we are one country
Gonzalez: High hopes for the hard hit in Bronx
Obama sworn in as 44th President
Louis: Bam, fans may have changed politics forever
Cheers, tears of joy all over city
WERE YOU THERE? SENDS US YOUR PHOTOS, STORIES

WASHINGTON - President Bush took a final solo stroll on the South Lawn and later blew a departing kiss to the White House Tuesday to end two terms marked by crisis at home and abroad.

As huge crowds eager to see his back overflowed the National Mall, Bush was for the last time the First Gentleman in graciously welcoming his hugely more popular successor, who was soon to call the time of the 43rd President a "collective failure."

"Hey, hey," said a smiling Bush as he joined with First Lady Laura Bush to greet President-elect Barack Obama and his wife, Michelle, at the North Portico of the White House. "Morning, morning," both Obamas said.

Bush put his arm around Obama and briskly patted him several times on the back to usher the group inside for the traditional morning coffee before the inauguration.

Michelle Obama brought a gift for the outgoing First Lady in a white box decorated with a red ribbon. It was a pen inscribed with the date Jan. 20, 2009.

The pentup emotion of the moment was too much for some of Bush's loyal staff, who stayed true as the ratings of their boss sank to historic lows.

Laura Bush cheerily waved and said "Bye, Dana" to White House press secretary Dana Perino as she entered the White House after greeting the Obamas. The moment was too much for Perino, who burst into tears.

White House officials said the Bush administration was over. There would be no last-minute executive orders or pardons, and the remaining staff began turning in their BlackBerrys.

Moving vans began pulling up right after Bush and Obama left for the Capitol at 11 a.m. Before leaving, Bush left behind a note for Obama in the top drawer of the Oval Office desk.

The custom is not to disclose the contents, but Perino said the general theme was "about the fabulous new chapter President-elect Obama is about to start, and that he wishes him the very best."

Bush slept late - for him - on the last day of work, arriving at the Oval Office at 7 a.m. rather than the usual 6 a.m. He took phone calls from Secretary of State Rice, national security adviser Stephen Hadley, former White House chief of staff Andrew Card and T.D. Jakes, the pastor of a Texas megachurch who has often spoken at Bush events.

Perino said Bush was in good spirits. "He's the President of the United States, the way he always is. He hasn't changed," but "he gave me a big kiss on the forehead."

Following the inaugural address, the latest former President and Laura Bush boarded a Marine helicopter at the Capitol's East Front to Andrews Air Force Base. In a break with tradition, President Obama and Vice President Biden and their wives lined up on the steps to wave goodbye.

The Bushes rode home aboard a 747 from the Air Force One fleet now dubbed Special Air Mission 28000 since he was no longer President.

"I gave it my all," a jovial Bush told a welcoming crowd in Midland, Tex. "Sometimes what I did wasn't popular, but that's okay. Popularity is as fleeting as the Texas wind. When I get home and look in the mirror tonight, I'm not gonna regret what I see."

Location: 8 years and I still can't think of anything witty to put here

Posts: 34,698

Local Time: 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by diamond

There is a stark difference on how Clinton left the office of President to Bush vs the way
Bush left the office to Obama:

There's also a stark difference between how Clinton left the state of the country vs. the way Bush left the state of the country, but hey as long as Bush didn't remove the O's from the keyboards I guess it's all good right?

That might help a little, but as those of us who've been around FYM for a while know, being able to cite supporting sources of information doesn't necessarily mean your argument is more sound. Especially in the age of the internet.

Also, not all debates turn on 'evidence' (in the sense of reams of statistics or what have you). Some turn on a chain of logic, or follow from first principles. I prefer these because I'm lazy and because 'evidence' is very malleable.

There are no innocent bystanders when our money and/or rhetoric support the world's most powerful military and the corporate status quo. But if we just keep telling ourselves it's all Bush's fault, we can sleep better.

As recently as 2002, a majority of states were Republican in orientation. By 2005, movement in the Democratic direction was becoming apparent, and this continued in 2006. That dramatic turnaround is clearly an outgrowth of Americans' dissatisfaction with the way President George W. Bush governed the country.

My only worry is that now, after years of using America as that scapegoat, the world is expecting America to sort everything out again. Obama has SO much pressure on his shoulders and I don't envy the man.
But I do think he'll restore their standing in the world somewhat

Cues up: Presssure/Billy Joel, Too Much Pressure/The Specials

I've been praying for him & his family. & the Bidens, too.

I do think he will restore some of our standing in the world in the short & long run.

Quote:

Originally Posted by partygirlvox

Do people in the US realise how in thrall the rest of us are to Obama, too? I genuinely want to know the answer to that - it feels like he's been elected as leader of the world, not just America.

Well, some of us do, who have the inclination, and time to pay attention to the rest of the world.

( Tho my feeling is that if you can afford a radio/ esp a portable you can have on you walking about to various places/things to do you can pay attention to Public Radio here in the States at least some of the time --- even if NPR has gotten a more conservative in the past several years. $$ pressure perhaps & the right-wing guy who was put in the FCC.

Hopefully this might change back. :fingerscrossed: Especially for those of us with less access to the Net (I have no net at home), or can't, or refuse to pay for satellite radio, as well. Can't afford Cable either. )

Anyway.......Did you ever see the net sites "We're Sorry" Americans apologizing to The World that Bush was "elected" a 2nd time, and "Apologies Accepted" from The World back to America.

Multiple feelings elecited >> very moving, and often very funny, and sweet.